Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2006 July 14

14 July 2006

Department of Chemical Engineering & Technology

See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Department of Chemical Engineering and Technology

The article was deleted on the grounds of it being like an advertisement of the institute. I requested the closing sysop to restore the article on my user space at User:Gaurav.ssc/Userfy & the article was restored for review. Since the Department of Chemical Engineering & Technology, Panjab University is an important contributor to the research work in India and imparting high quality education, it deserves space on Wikipedia. The institute is also the official regional centre of the Indian Institute of Chemical Engineers (IIChE) and also houses the Energy Research Centre. Respecting the policy of neutrality of Wikipedia, I've made major changes in the original article to make it more appropriate and sensible. Instead of totally removing the article, we should work on editing it (which is the fundamental of Wikipedia's way of working), and I've tried to follow this principle of Wikipedia. I suppose an article such as this one instead of complete deletion should be considered for edition since a country's premier research institute is in no way a matter of controversy. Gaurav 17:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• The article is certainly not an advertisement of the institute and i suppose should be undeleted. 59.144.180.143 18:17, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted, valid AfD. Recommend to expand Panjab University instead. Dr Zak 20:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep Deleted as per Dr Zak. Dionyseus 23:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Keep deleted and mention it in the article for Panjab University. Certainly reads like an advertisement. --Ezeu 01:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• No objections. Restore it, article is well. Miller.chapman 03:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion: The process was followed, as it could hardly have failed to have been. This is a very, very long standing procedure, as Dr. Zak indicates. Whenever someone comes forward with a particular department in a college, the answer is to have the information in the college/university's article, unless that department (e.g. Lawrence Livermore Laboratories) is known as an entity so individual that people aren't aware of what university it belongs to. Geogre 03:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Sockpuppet and nonce account activity here argues strongly for protection. Geogre 12:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• I do not consider the article as an advertisement. In fact, it is an informative and useful article on a premier public institution of India, and should not be deleted.Ucsabharwal 05:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete When a department has a national recongnition on its own, apart from the university which it is a part of, it should be allowed separate place on Wikipedia. 59.94.247.29 09:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete JayWZR3 09:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• UNDELETE why will such a 49 year old dept such as deptt of chemical engg...pu advertise like this...it dosent need cause its the best here in north india..so i think the article is relevant and should b given a nod...202.141.64.175 10:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• RESTORE Article of such an old institution posessing an "Energy research Centre" which is among the best in the Asian subcontinent.Article should remain "Undeleted".Chemengbn 11:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. There is enough here for a good para in Panjab University, the balance was of much less obvious utility. And the article title is generic. Just zis Guy you know? 13:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Sorry, I've read the article. It's essentially what one would find on the website of any major department in a major university in the U.S.: location, facilities, research work being done by faculty, etc. It's of little interest to anyone other than perhaps an applicant to the department; even then, it's rather boilerplate (thin on specifics). I did a google search on "Chemical Engineering" and "Panjab", and most of the top results seem to be people who have this in their resume/CV. That's not exactly strong support that this department is significant. John Broughton 14:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse ... the school article itself is basically a stub. Why don't you expand that article by adding information about this department? If the section becomes too large, then split it out, but there's no need for a separate article now. The AFD realized this. The deletion was proper. BigDT 14:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• Undelete as to my knowledge this dept. is really a milestone in the field of chemical engineering in India..... i have even heard people saying it a 'golden dept'....the article nowhere suggest that it is a sort of advertisement.... it deserves a place here.......—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 59.95.160.75 (talk • contribs) 15 July 2006.
• Endores closure Process was followed. ~ trialsanderrors 18:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: If the article is considered an advertisement, it shall be an advertisement even if it is integrated with Panjab University; so what changes do other users suggest? I've edited it at my best to follow the principle of neutrality of Wikipedia. The article is on my user space at User:Gaurav.ssc/Userfy. Please have a view. Gaurav 06:51, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: "Advertisement" isn't a very good rationale for the deletion. It's possbible that folks simply didn't think through why they favored deletion very well, but deletion is nearly mandatory by our longstanding policy of merging and redirecting departments to their colleges/universities, except in truly exceptional and truly rare cases. There is no evidence that this is even close to one of those cases and sufficient evidence that it isn't. Geogre 18:59, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment. The AfD had only two comments before closing, which is extremely puny. However, the extreme amount of sockpuppetry here makes me think that a relisted AfD might suffer the same. I can't, therefore, say which course of action I support more. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 07:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment, I've advised accordingly on appealle's talkpage. Recommend endorse deletion at 4his time. - Mailer Diablo 15:46, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted. No obvious issues with the AfD or its closure. With regard to the merits, though not really under discussion here... as I expected, surprise, surprise, the article cites no sources whatsoever, and removing material that does not meet the verifiability policy would amount to blanking the entire article. It is full of highly promotional unsourced opinion from start to finish: "acquired a pre-eminent status in the northern zone and earned many distinctions during its span of existence," "highly qualified faculty members," "Soon after its birth the institute became a power chamber," "The institute is packed with persistent faculty, and qualitative students, and a long list of distinguished alumni," no less than three references to "well equipped laboratories." This non-neutral tone would justify its deletion as "advertising." In its present form it would not have a snowball's chance of surviving another AfD. As always, there is nothing to stop anyone from starting from scratch and insert properly sourced, neutral, factual material... preferably into Panjab University. Dpbsmith (talk) 22:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: As I mentioned earlier, the statements undelined by Dpbsmith and which contributed to the non-neutrality of the article are already removed by me and the edited article is at my user space User:Gaurav.ssc/Userfy . The extra information I've added to the article are that the institute is the regional centre of Indian Institute of Chemical Engineers, which can be verified from IIChE website . Also that the institute was granted Rs. 60 lakh by the Department of Science & Technology, Government of India, which can be verified at Fund for Improvement of S&T Infrastructure in Higher Educational Institutions website Gaurav 04:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Removed? The article at User:Gaurav.ssc/Userfy contains language like "one of the premier institutes in India for chemical engineering," received a grant under a "prestigious program," "maintain[s] global standards of excellence" (no source cited), "21 of the 30 faculty members have PhD degrees from various prestigious institutions," has a "highly prestigious Energy Research Centre," is a "major focal point" for energy research, etc. etc.
• Undelete: I am not a regular editor of Wikipedia, but the current discussion made me interested. I am based in India so I have a good understanding of Department of Chemical Engineering & Technology, which is exclusive in its own nature. Normally in India we have engineering colleges having various branches like Electronics, Mechanical, Computer, IT, Chemical, Civil etc. in the same college. All departments have a common chairman or director. But DCET was set up exclusively as a college of chemical engineering and chemical technology study & research and exists as a very separate entity with its own chairman. There is another college in Panjab University called University Institute of Engineering & Technology (UIET) which houses other branches, namely Mechanical, Computer, IT etc. in the same college with a common chairman responsible for all the departments and the Department of Chemical Engineering & Technology is a separate college. 59.94.241.95 17:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse per BigDT, he said it perfectly. Stick it in the school article. Themindset 18:53, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Closure as said by Dr_Zak. I think the article is worthy of inclusion in wikipedia, just not at the current position. I note that there are many universities that have a department of the same name. Therefore, it seems illogical for the one institution to have a sole entry and it would get very messy if all the other universities also placed their respective entries at this location. Nisanu 22:18, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Kevin Zeese

See: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kevin Zeese

A redirect was placed on Kevin Zeese, redirecting to an article on a U.S. Senate race in which he is a minor candidate. Lost in the deletion discussion (an extremely convoluted one, admittedly) was that the subject is notable enough to have over 200,000 hits when a search is done in google, with very few of these due to his candidacy. So the redirect is wrong - he is notable mostly for other things, and notable enough to have his own article. Here is the last version of the article before the redirect was put in place. John Broughton 16:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Overturn, with nothing against a relist. I think the admin did the best s/he could under tough circumstances, but we obviously got this one wrong. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • For the record, he. --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: I'm not in favour of a relist, but apart from that, well, there were a fair number of new users voting in this one. I welcome other opinions on this AfD, because it wasn't exactly very easy to close this one. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure Tough afd, with the subject mentioning sending the wikilink to reporters, limited references (3/4 of which are currently broken) in the article, but personal acquaintances "confirming" information, so a redirect seemed a good call, given that article+afd. However, it does appear that the subject is more notable than first appeared, so while endorsing original decision, it is with no prejudice against the creation of a well-sourced, NPOV version, perferably created by someone not directly related to subject to avoid potential WP:AUTO and WP:OR issues. Regards, MartinRe 17:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Restore, tag for cleanup, revisit in a month or so. Oh, and run up the flags, I just agreed with Jeff :-) Just zis Guy you know? 18:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Hell hath frozen over, and I think I saw a few pigs fly into windows. --Deathphoenix ʕ 18:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • There's hope for the Middle East yet! --badlydrawnjeff talk 18:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. The above statement about "200,000 hits" is based on a common mistake when reading Google results--if you click through to the end, you will find only 192 unique hits, hardly enough to support the argument that they were important information overlooked in the AFD. Therefore, with no new information of note presented, we have no reason to overturn the (admittedly contentious) original results. --Aquillion 03:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • White House has 329 unique hits. --SPUI (T - C) 05:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
    • A search on "Robert Ehrlich", the governor of Maryland, has 378,000 google hits, but google listed only 620 before giving the following message (note that the word "unique" is NOT used): In order to show you the most relevant results, we have omitted some entries very similar to the 620 already displayed. In other words, Google now builds a list of a few hundred results, figuring that almost all users aren't going to care about more than that; the few users that do can rerun the search again with ALL results listed. May I politely suggest that this "unique results" argument be dropped, since it has to do with google being efficient, NOT google detecting massive duplication of pages? John Broughton 14:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

*Keep Deleted as per above. Dionyseus 03:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• Restore etc. per JzG. FCYTravis 05:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn: He's been published in major outlets, and that's good enough for me. Expand the article and you've got a nice bit on Kevin Zeese. --Signed and Sealed, JJJJust^{*T C} 08:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• He seems notable enough to me, his name gets 1100 hits in America's Newspapers and 84 in LexisNexis (going back 2 years), a lot are just quoting him in things about Nader's 2004 campaign, but there is also years of coverage of drug related activism. His Senate campaign doesn't have squat for coverage though, so I don't think he is notable for that at all. A few Washington Post articles in back sections, etc, even some fluff about discussion revovling around him at Daily Kos. You also have the writer angle to work. He has a few op-eds and such, along with the other things mentioned in the article. I cannot really say that the process of the close was out of line, but it was wrong, IMO, so revert (and you don't really even need DRV to do this). Kotepho 14:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• Not appropriate for deletion review. Close this discussion as irrelevant. The topic was not deleted, so deletion review would only be appropriate if there were thought that it should have been. Neither AfD nor DRV makes binding decisions on redirects or article refactoring. These are ordinary edits which do not require administrative privileges and should be hashed out in the normal way on the talk pages of the relevant articles. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The redirect was to a campaign article for a November 2006 election, in which much of the detail about Kevin Zeese is inappropriate (he is, after all, a minor candidate). Moreover, anything that Zeese does after November 2006 doesn't belong in that article. Are you proposing that the redirect stay in place only for four months? Permanently? That this entire matter be revisited (yet another discussion round??) in late November? John Broughton 19:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
    • No what he's saying is that you can simply go to the article history, rewrite the article from an older version (presumably to build up on his outside notability and de-emphasize his campaign which seems to have been the problem) and revert the redirect as a normal editor. A closure as redirect is technically a keep, because the article history is still in place. There is no admin action necessary here. ~ trialsanderrors 19:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse decision process was followed. The rest can be solved via normal editing processes, per dpbsmith. ~ trialsanderrors 18:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment: While it may technically not be appropriate for deletion review, it is a good thing to have checks and balances and use this option, otherwise it could be interpreted as restoration of deleted material with vandalistic intent. --Signed and Sealed, JJJJust^{*T C} 04:31, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The best insurance against vandalism accusations is a well-written article. ~ trialsanderrors 22:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• overturn decision please published in major outlets known for more than senate race Yuckfoo 08:23, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Overturn per JJJJust, JzG, and John Broughton. Dionyseus 01:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Everywhere Girl

I believe this entry should be restored and random peasants like Bwithh, Dionyseus, Calton, etc, prevented from acting like war winners who decide which facts will be considered history. Let the time be the judge here where the space is not limited.

See: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Everywhere_Girl_(2nd_nomination).

It is absurd that this page has been speedily deleted. The claim is tha tit is nothing more than a marketing ploy invented between The Inquirer and Jennifer Chandra. Which is false - because if it is true, then it is the dammned slowest marketing campaign I have ever seen - spanning years to get a little recognition.

I believe this represents a genuine cultural phenomena. It may have begun as a rather tongue in cheek, “Oh look! There she is again, this time hawking a competitors product.”

If wikipedia allows the most inane things in sci-fi or fantasy to be expounded upon in great length, then surely it can allow legitimate phenomena to be articled. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.61.28.114 (talk • contribs) 13:32, July 14, 2006 - moving improperly placed request --Calton (UTC)

• Keep deleted Also looks like the poor dears at the Inquirer are so upset at Wikipedia. --Calton | Talk 13:49, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Restore Inane things in fantasy vs inane things in reality. Having personally followed the story for years, it's indeed symbolic of our times. Especially considering Internet_phenomenon exists - hampster dance, goatse, singing asian kids, why not everywhere girl? --- 68.41.199.229 14:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: I've notified Aaron Brenneman of this DRV (and in rhyming couplets, no less), though he likely already knows about it. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Thanks for that notification, D. I think I said everything I could in the close, really. I'll say more if anyone wants, of course. Always happy to have my work reviewed, no drama if anyone disagrees. - brenneman ^{L} 14:23, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted This was not speedy deleted despite the nominator's claim, the discussion lasted for a bit over four days. Also, The Inquire has published a new article today directly attacking me, User:Bwithh, and Wikipedia in general. [1] Dionyseus 14:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Four days? Oops. UTC error... I've closed several AfDs early today. - brenneman ^{L} 14:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Herm. in that case, maybe reopen for 24 hrs and reclose again, for the sake of process ? I dunno. One for the admins. Bwithh 15:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure The attempted repost of the article (after the original was deleted) was speedily deleted, but the original went through a lengthy afd. The user who brought this issue to deletion review does not raise any issues about process, but seems to be just repeating arguments already made in the afd Bwithh 14:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. Bwithh has expressed my sentiment better than I could hope to. If the article had been speedied, I might have second thoughts, but it's gone through a full AFD. I can only express a confused feeling toward outside users trying to come in and start trouble, particularly when the trouble in question is to do with an unabashed attempt at ballot stuffing. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 14:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Polly want notability. Keep deleted, no reasons given why the AfD should be overturned apart from some online website declaring we're about to go under, making it the lucky 45,295,748th entry in the "Wikipedia's End Is Nigh" contest. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 15:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Closure. The first AfD ended with no consensus but I adjudge the arguments for deletion as stronger even then. The second AfD had lots of good discussion and the closer did a very good job of giving background on the process and of explaining reasons for the close. Very solid close in my view and no reason to overturn. DRV is not about the article itself, it's about process. Process was followed, and the right result reached, in my view. Note: If someone wants to merge some of this text into Stock photography if it makes sense, I am happy to temporarily undelete and userify for their convenience, just ask. ++Lar: t/c 15:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Questions for the Inquirer/Inquirer Readers
  • Why does the Inquirer think that the Everywhere Girl will have a better chance of maintaining an article in Larry Sanger's expert-driven Wikipedia fork project? I'd imagine that the expert editors of that project would simply speedy delete an Everywhere Girl article without a public afd process. Or maybe even the public wouldn't have access to editing/creating on the expert wikipedia anyway. Bwithh 15:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • What exactly is a "Wikpedia Parrot"?

• Parrot because everyone thoughtlessly repeats what everyone else says. ---68.41.199.229 22:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Bwithh 15:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• It's like your average editor, but with feathers, I suppose. After all, who can divine the motivation of British online tech-magazines that unprofessionally harbot hateful grudges? --Kuzaar^-T-C- 16:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse Closure. DRV makes no reasonable claim why this should even be reconsidered. It is simply sour grapes.--Isotope23 18:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Journalistic Gem I somehow missed until now this sparkling gem of a Inquirer quote about how that esteemed publication views Everywhere Girl (from last month, before the afd): "CHEAP SHOTS ARE like Everywhere Girl stories, nothing for a long time, then when you least expect it, they flow like a journalist who didn't listen to advice on eating street meat in Taiwan."[[2]]. Remarkable sentiment. Just about sums it all up. Perhaps if we had cited it earlier on, we wouldn't have had to go through such a sligfest Bwithh 18:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, salute Aaron for one of the most cogent AfD closures in living memory, and trout-slap the anon requester for using pejorative language. The "random peasants" have all the good arguments in this case. Just zis Guy you know? 18:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Mister, I bet you already know what you could do instead of trout-slapping me without me having to use pejorative language again. I am standing behind my words above and although you have a signature and I don't, trust me -- you are equally anonymous. I have yet to see ONE good argument for deleting this entry. All those policies mentioned are not so strict that one has to follow them blindly, they are just a guideline. I don't know about you, but I would rather follow a leader who uses his sight and choses his path wisely on each crossing instead of one who is blind and strictly follows the road leading into the abyss. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.200.209.71 (talk • contribs) .

Moreover, if the intent of wikipedia is to have an entry on everything that is relevant, then this entry should be restored. If not, then all the entries for all the American fabricated pop culture icons (Britney Spears comes to mind first) should also be deleted because people from Europe and Asia don't care about them. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.200.209.71 (talk • contribs) .

Actually I am readily identifiable and my identity is no secret. If you stand by your comments above, I'll happily block you for violating WP:NPA. And for the record I would be overjoyed if all the so-called "slebrities" were deleted. Just zis Guy you know? 19:37, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

If you are identifiable then sign with your real name and last name and back up your votes, edits and comments. I hereby suggest a change to the wikipedia so that every editor is obliged to have an accurate CV. That way people could verify their credibility on the subject they have chosen to participate in, and maybe even vote for their favorite editors. While you are blocking me, you may as well consider blocking Calton because he also violated WP:NPA by attacking The Inquirer readers and poor people from all over the world in his comment furhter below. I am glad that we at least agree on the celebrities but until I see Britney zapped I won't be happy about deletion of this entry either. If I could chose between those two I would keep this one although Britney seems to be more "notable" by wikipedia double standards.

Comment. That violates the entire principle of allowing casual editing. You could always propose it, but I doubt it would pass community consensus. Also, might I suggest you are taking this WAY TOO SERIOUSLY? It's a wikipedia article. If we all went stomping around and moaning on our blogs every time the community decided against our opinion, we wouldn't get any real editing done. The basic principle you must accept if you wish to use wikipedia is that group consensus is greater than your opinion when the two conflict. That's why we are a collaborative project. --tjstrf 00:30, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Tthere are at least two obvious flaws in the logic of the above anonymous. The first is that I do sign with my real name, and if you follow the link to my talk page you'll get my full' name and enough additional info that you could probably find me in the phone book. The second is the usual "if foo is deleted then bar must be deleted" canard, which usually fails to acknowledge that foo once ran for senior debating captain abd bar was a two-term President of the United States. If anyone is taking this way too seriously it would appear to be Mr. Anon. Just zis Guy you know? 13:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure and remind the nominator of what happened on Bastille Day with the peasants. Geogre 19:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, the process was correctly followed. The closing admin went to extreme length to clarify the decision using the out-of-fashion good sense and logic. I wouldn't bother trying to pick the logic out of a The Inquirer article though... it's not one of their strong points. - Motor (talk) 20:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah, but they copy Private Eye catchphrases, which makes them a bastion of British ironic humour. Or not. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 21:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure - looks like a good process to me, the notability of the "actress" involved wasn't established, the "meme" seems to be pushed by one source of questionable use, and the whole thing just gave me a bloody headache. Ugh. Tony Fox (speak) 20:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Restore. Looking at the first vote section, from which new and unregistered users have been remove I count 16 keeps and 16 deletes, and as such the deletion cannot be argued based on consensus. I also note that what I consider good arguments for keeping have been made, among them
  • "featured in countless ads, so she is notable as a model. She has also been subject of a number of news articles" (me)
  • "Wikipedia doesn't have the constraints of a paper encyclopedia."
  • "As someone who's followed her story on the INQ, I'd say she's quite notable."
  • "she may not have been notable before, but since the Inq story, and its many, many followups around the web, she certainly is now."

I also note that she the article was first listed for deletion with the argument that her appences in ads were a hoax, simultaneosly with the afd Dionyseus posted on the now deleted talk page that "All the ads were photoshopped" (this claim is completely false). The AFD debate was somewhat colored by this beginning, especially the first votes.

Some people argue that The Inquirer is not trustworthy, but it has consistently posted links to the online ads, so there really is little room for doubt.

I also note that there is a strong tendency to discard good arguments, just because there are a number of IP users who support the same end, but perhaps use the wrong means. Thue | talk 21:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

adding a comment from the now deleted talk page:

"Several months ago, when I wanted to find out more about Everywhere Girl, the first place I looked was Wikipedia. Moreover, I *expected* Wikipedia to have an article about it. I trust that many others had similar expectations."

Thue | talk 22:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment Then that user should look for "Everywhere Girl" in The Inquirer, seeing as how they are obsessed with her. As for the claim that the photos were photoshopped, I dropped that claim, she still fails WP:Bio and she doesn't meet any criteria for a meme. Dionyseus 23:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, Keep deleted. Nothing out of process with the Afd. Aaron was very clear in his summary, and I second Guy in his praise. The subject herself is not notable, not a public figure, random 15 seconds notwithstanding, WP is not an indiscrimiate collector of Internet trivia. ANONYMOUS WIKIPEDIAN PARROT 22:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion. If she ever actually does achieve significant notability, put her in under her real name, not something weird like "Everywhere Girl." This isn't even a meme. Though the more we discuss this, the more likely she is to become one, courtesy of the internet being weird and illogical.

Also, I'd like to point out that User:Dionyseus is now equally notable to the Everywhere Girl! He was mentioned in the same online periodical, after all. Shall we give him an article?--tjstrf 23:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

"Weird and illogical". I like the way you spell "shite". You say tomayto? --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:29, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Flawless logic tjstrf. Following your logic I will also be putting Bill Clinton up for deletion as he has equal notability as Everywhere Girl because he was also mentioned by The Inquirer here. Suoerh2 02:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Logic is a very sharp analytical tool, so I advise you to put it down now before you hurt yourself and others. --Calton | Talk 03:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Sarcasm-> Very funny and most notable, how come there is no entry about you on wikipedia? You are threading the very history here with your brilliant words and sharp analytical mind <-Sarcasm. Your mind is so amazingly clear Calton, that you should really be afraid of it because only the shallowest water is so clear. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.200.209.71 (talk • contribs) .

AHAHAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAH. OH CRAP THAT WAS FUNNY. You're awesome Calton! Keep it up! Suoerh2 03:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, I can see the demographic groupings that the Inquirer draws upon. I'll remember that, if I ever need to advertise whoopie cushions or other goods for the socially challenged. --Calton | Talk 17:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I love how you choose to insult your "opponent" rather than make actual cogent arguments, it goes to show that you are impartial and any salient points you do make have all the more punch after you insult someone. Suoerh2 21:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I love how you choose to insult your "opponent" rather than make actual cogent arguments, You first, Mr. Descartes. --Calton | Talk 23:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Suoerh2, please, calm thyself. And no, you can't propose Bill Clinton for deletion, as that would be a violation of the guideline no disrupting Wikipedia to make a point. Further, you know as well as I do that Clinton was actually mentioned by other notable sources as well. Nowhere-but-The-Inquirer Girl was not. --tjstrf 06:36, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure, keep deleted. Properly deleted in process, good closing summary. Dpbsmith (talk) 00:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Note: a sockpuppet, meatpuppet, or completely random vandal recreated the article at Jennifer Chandra -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 02:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy endorse closure, AfD properly closed. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:24, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is something I created for our lynch mob because I believe they deserve a separate page on the Internet, and who am I to deny them their 15 minutes of fame? As one of them said "please assume good faith". —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.200.209.71 (talk • contribs)

Yay! I'm famous! Almost as famous as nowhere-but-The-Inquirer Girl! Also, could you at least alphabetize the list? --tjstrf 06:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment Gee, I'm included too? Thanks, Igor, I'm touched you would think of me... Since it doesn't appear you have comments turned on, I'll just say that if you want to dig up personal information about me, it's not like I could stop you from doing so if that is your desire. I suspect you will be sorely disappointed though. I'm not so interesting a person that my personal info would be very exciting.--Isotope23 17:52, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, no, not a b-b-b-blog! The tidal wave of frowns directed at us will no doubt prove debilitating. It's clear: the vox humana wants that online newspaper's advertising in Wikipedia! Or, um, maybe not. Geogre 02:27, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

And here's my rant on this rant. Written in January. Aren't I prophetic? (In case you fail to get the drift: Did you ever consider the possibility that the original deletion was justified?) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure per all the other parrots ~ trialsanderrors 09:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I have just one thing to say: Wikipedia is not what it used to be. - Tibor

• Yes, it's more like an encyclopedia than it used to be. Dpbsmith (talk) 15:21, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• Valid AfD, Endorse Closure - And to mirror what others have said, it is by far one of the most well reasoned, beautifully explained AfD closures I have ever read, from one of our best admins. While the Inquirer and its fans may rail against this action as an example of what is supposedly wrong with the Project, it is quite evident that this AfD is highly representative of what is right with the Project. --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 21:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• Restore The recorded event whereby a collection of stock photographs taken of the same female wearing the same clothes was added to a photographic library was reused over and over, often the same image was simply cropped for use in a huge number of adverts shamlessly putting words into the subject's mouth promoting their own products and/or services. It is a huge example of Irony, the media, and an insight into advertising. Is this wikipedia? the open free online encyclopedia of today, or an abrdiged and censored '92 britanica? There is nothing inaaporopriate with "the everywhere girl" it is not a simple amusing event in internet history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tenquo (talk • contribs)
  • Comment this isn't another AfD. The Deletion Review is for commenting on why the deletion was done improperly, or why the reasons no longer stand. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 21:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure. Can't see what really is wrong with the AfD. We cried for proof of notability of the "meme", it didn't really materialise. People who are crying foul are advised to reword the thing as a trivia bullet point in Stock photography article or whatever, because frankly, that's how much solid, verifiable information you can get out of this mess. --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 09:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure. – Gurch 22:11, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• Wikiparrots Just wanted to point out the current inquirer website, as of time of writing http://www.theinquirer.net has a large sidebar picture of a parrot. If you hover your mouse cursor over it, the message reads "Wikiparrots are really geniuses". The sidebar links to a news article on parrot research suggesting they are more intelligent than previously theorized. Trivial, I know, but I'm taking this as a grudging compliment to Wikipedia and credit the Inquirer with a sense of humour about their "outrage" Bwithh 02:16, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep Deleted and let random nobodies run off at the mouth. Danny Lilithborne 04:39, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Endorse closure Aaron deserves a lot of praise for this (tough-looking) closure, and I see nothing wrong with it apart from some angry bloggers. --james _{// bornhj (talk)} 15:24, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Given the significant discussion present here, it would be appropriate to unblank the AfD discussion page while this topic is under 'undeletion review'. A claim to notability appears possible, her story is at the least fascinating even if not encyclopedic. Kershner 21:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted valid AfD. Not much more to say about it really. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Talifan

I spotted that New guy had created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Talifan to raise a question/objection over the speedy deletion of this article. I have told him to come here as the appropriate venue to discuss it. No vote from me. David | Talk 09:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Given how there was no debate nor consensus for deletion, is the deletion of this page a legitimate action? — Preceding unsigned comment added by New guy (talk • contribs)

Related links:

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-07-01 Talifan

Google cache of article

Article was supposed to be transwikied to Wiktionary, per the cabal, but I don't find it there. -- Fan-1967 14:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

That's my main concern. It wasn't ported over but deleted entirely. New guy 18:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Transwiki to Wikitionary as per mediation cabal. Dionyseus 23:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Transwiki to Wiktionary if they will take it, list on AFD if they will not. When deleting it, Jaranda said [3] "in wiktionary". The Wiktionary deletion log has no record of it being deleted there [4]. So I would suggest asking Jaranda for clarification. BigDT 23:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Wikitionary has no record of any article by this name being transwikied (wikt:Transwiki#T). --ais523 16:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Club Penguin

I think it is notable enough for a page. If Runscape has a page, so should CP, since it has more users. --Jordan 05:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• A legitimate and unanimous AfD vote, and seven subsequent deletions of re-posts. This article is the reason why we created {{deletedpage}}. Keep deleted. Harro5 08:46, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse: Argument by analogy is a fallacy, and we review the process, not the content. Geogre 11:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion, constant re-creations justify the salting, too. --Deathphoenix ʕ 14:14, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted as per above. Dionyseus 14:29, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, keep deleted per all above and Afd. If Runscape has a page, Runscape has a page. This is not relevant. KillerChihuahua^?!? 22:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy keep deleted, proper AfD closure, no new argument presented. User:Zoe|^(talk) 03:26, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure what was in the page that was deleted, or whether it was written objectively or as an advertising blurb. I can say that the website is popular with my children and their friends. I would appreciate objective information on the website on wikipedia so that I can make up my mind whether it is worthwhile spending money on it. I have been able to use wikipedia to look at other similiar websites. I suggest that there is public benefit in having some information on it in wikipedia.--DaProthonotary 13:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Surprisingly, this is this user's only edit to Wikipedia. I often wonder how new editors are able to find their way to DRV to make their first edits. User:Zoe|^(talk) 20:45, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment He either has insane luck, dogged persistence, or was linked here. It took me nearly two hours to figure out how to make a deletion nomination my first time. --tjstrf 09:19, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

If you go to Club Penguin it takes you right here. ~ trialsanderrors 09:25, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

I edited Wikipedia for something like six months before discovering that AfD/DRV (then VfD/VfU) even existed. Dpbsmith (talk) 18:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it was rather easy to find. You just type "Club Penguin" into the search box on the left and click go and there are links straight there. I have never felt the urge to edit before, so have not registered. I use wikipedia for what it was intended, a general knowledge research tool, which means I read it. Putting that aside, my argument still stands, the website still merits an entry, even if it reads "Club Penguin: Mostly harmless (or mostly useless, if that is your point of view)". --DaProthonotary 10:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

myg0t

FYI, This page started out on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Deletion_review July 9th, I am moving it to the project page. All signed comments were actually made at the indicated signature times. cacophony 06:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

myg0t have/had a large impact on the gaming community, ranging from Counter Strike to Warcraft. Though other internet organisations intent on annoying people, such as the gnaa, have been allowed to exist, the myg0t article was given a Speedy Deletion which many claimed was the result of a baised admins decision. Whether or not this is true or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is the article in relation to gaming and the internet community surroudnoing myg0t. They had an impact, were well known about, had a forum with over 50,000 users and were had a large effect on the gaming community. The myg0t article deserves to be recreated.--Nayl 03:42, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

• Now let's see. There was a vote to delete in August, 2004. It got recreated, then there was another deletion in March, 2005. Then again in May, 2006. Then that deletion was reviewed. Consistent result every time: Delete and keep it deleted. Fan-1967 22:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

• The final deletion when the article was deleted and protected was extremely controversial. Why should an article such as Leeroy Jenkins, a WoW fad that died out ages ago be allowed to remain and yet an article on a gaming group that has had a huge effect on the gaming community is deleted? Damn. We better go delete the article on the Nazis because they were just some group in history that pissed a bunch of people off. --Nayl 21:01, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• If myg0t gets mentioned on Jeopardy, you might have an argument. EVula 21:30, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
• And yet, Leeroy Jenkins gets over three times as many google hits as myg0t. Odd, isn't it? Fan-1967 21:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• And yet GNAA is given a pass...why, exactly? -- nae'blis _(talk) 18:40, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• Every case is unique. GNAA and myg0t are certainly not identical. Fan-1967 18:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted AfDed three times, DRVed at once. Deleted every time. Extremely strong consensus certainly exists not to have this article. I would suggest not requesting review again unless substantial new information arises. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 00:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Not true, the last successful DrV was a year after the prior AfD, and after the successful DrV, it was immediatly AfD'd. cacophony 06:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Restore It seems to me that when an article is restored year after year that there is obviously something more to it. GNAA might get 265,000 google links but gnaa -niger -nigger -gay gets 205,000 so the real GNAA hits are much less ("gay nigger association of america" gets 12,000) wheras myg0t (a unigue name that can only mean one thing) gets 71,000. One look at alexa shows that the main sites of both had comparable traffic (up until myg0t was shutdown for unknown reasons). They are notable and need an article, if for anything to explain what they are to their victims. I found about GNAA and Last Measure here. Shouldn't I have a way to find out about myg0t and sporkeh from something other than a newgrounds flash?

--68.40.0.189 05:28, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Comment So by refining the search, GNAA doesn't get almost four times as many hits as myg0t, only three times as many. That's a powerful argument. </end sarcasm> Fan-1967 13:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• • No, look again. By refining the search GNAA gets less than myg0t. GNAA can stand for a lot more the the Gay Nigger Association of America (see the GNAA abrev. for a few). By removing key words associated with them there is still a large number of pages hence 270,000 - 205,000 = 65,000. This is not an extremly accurate measure, but it is enough to show it is definately not 3-4 times as many hits (The quoted full name of the organization only gets 12,000 hits, but is still an unfair measure). --146.9.223.96 21:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Restore As per all the previous arguments;

• notable: myg0t has been mentioned in 3 international publications; PC Zone, PC Format, and Rolling Stone.
• Article was speedily deleted with no CSD
• Article is a recurring canidate for deletion, as per WP:DP, as the article was nominated for AfD no more than a few months after it passed DrV.
• Also WP:DP states, "repeated re-creation of an article by previously unassociated editors may at times be evidence of a need for an article."
• AfD procedures not followed the last time: because the article was deleted without any prior notice up until a few hours before the deletion, because of the questionable intent of the administrator (deletion reason was "sayonara"), because the AfD was closed prematurely, preventing anybody from voicing their dissent, because a voided AfD would thus void the subsequent DrV, article should be restored, and if an AfD is necessary, it should be conducted properly.
• Also, why is this in Wikipedia Talk? Shouldn't it be on the project page? Reguardless, my reguards, cacophony 05:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

• Keep deleted. AFDed three times, DRVed once, no new info and no issues with process. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 07:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Reguardless of what issues you may or may not have, the fact remains that the latest AfD did not follow proper process, and thus should be negated. Besides, if "it's been AfD'd before" was really an argument, then nothing would ever get DrV'd, because it's been AfD'd before.cacophony 07:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Okay. I still don't see new information or new problems with process, and this really doesn't need a fifth bite at the apple. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 09:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted. They're trolls, they exist to provoke attention. So they got 15 minutes of fame from some special-interest magazines. Still wouldn't know them from a hole in my arse. Does not justify historical record and never will. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 09:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • P.S. Yes, GNAA should be deleted as well. It's only still here because when it gets nominated people keep voting 'speedy keep' on the basis that the last AfD resulted in 'speedy keep' on the basis that the AfD before that had resulted in 'speedy keep', etc... at some point that should be reopened, the nominator should patiently explain that there are no binding decisions, the discussion can go through (preferably semi-protected), and then it can be nuked from orbit when the non-existent verifiability (the 'footnotes' currently read: self-published, Slashdot, blog, blog, self-published, blog, blog and blog) is exposed. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 09:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
    • That's exactly what happens here. People vote to delete on the basis that the last AfD/DrV resulted in delete on the basis that the last AfD/DrV resulted in delete, etc ad infinitum. Not many people in THIS DrV have presented a reason to delete other than that that's how the last one turned out. cacophony 21:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
    • I second the motion that it's time to re-open the GNAA question. AfD semi-protected from the start, off-topic threads moved to talk, close admin supervision, etc. - brenneman ^{L} 11:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Thirded. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
        • Fourthed is that even a word? Whispering 19:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • SO GNAA and myg0t should be closed because they crave attention and thats what wikipedia is giving them?? What about the people that run into them, I guess they shouldn't have an unbiased account of what these organizations are and their tactics? They exist, not having a Wikipedia article won't make them not exist (count the negatives in that one). I learned all about Last Measure from here, without having to experiance it. I can point to wikipedia and say don't listen to these guys, heres an article to tell you not to go those URLs they post. Or ban this clan the only reason it exists is for chaos. Why do you people want the web to be less informed? --146.9.223.96 21:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • So is Bantown, and that article leaves much to be desired compared to what the article on myg0t used to be before it was arbitrarily deleted. Besides, there is no wikipedia policy that strictly forbids any trolls from appearing on wikipedia. Notable trolls deserve to be noted, and myg0t has satisfied the qualifications for notability. Discounting references in popular international publications as meaningless because they are "special interest" (which, by the way, nearly every magazine is), makes no sense. You might have more of an argument if they were all on the same subject, but in fact, while two were in computer-related publications, a third was in a publication on music and culture. A group so influential and far reaching across such unrelated subjects is certainly notable. cacophony 22:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
    • How the article Bantown could have possibly influenced my opinion on mygot I've no idea, as I've never heard of it. But I have now! --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion - This sort of thing by nature has a high bar to meet to be notable for inclusion in an encyclopedia. --Improv 12:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Restore, possibly relist with close supervision. I'm not sure what basic standard it fails to meet for inclusion at this point. --badlydrawnjeff talk 12:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• I don't see mention of the major media menions listed above in the AfD? Do we have specific citations for these mentions, and have they been discussed (and presumably rejected) before? - brenneman ^{L} 14:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The Rolling Stone blurb in question. mygot[myg0t] is mentioned in the first paragraph --68.40.0.189 02:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted per Fan-1967. Dionyseus 14:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted yet again. Sam Blanning put his finger on it. Just zis Guy you know? 18:36, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse deletion been there done that got the T-Shirt. Whispering 19:09, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Restore Notable internet community with a large fanbase and a forum that had something like 70,000 members. Lets not forget "I hate yuo myg0t", www.pwned.nl, www.g0tcheats.com, www.myg0t.com, the various YTMNDs made of the group and much much more. A restored article though must be complete factual and no "myg0t pwn3d noobs" crap.--Nayl 20:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Restore Mentioned in three different magazine articles including Rolling Stone. Lots of media attention surrounded myg0t after the Half-Life 2 source leak. They have been around since 1998 and are not just a fad. But, they are a trolling/raging group so Wiki admin's delete the page at their own arbitration, giving them bad Wiki standing. InfiniteIdeals
  • User's third edit. User's other two edits were to argue the same way in the other two deletion reviews over Mygot in March and May. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 22:48, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
    • This is not the first time Samuel Blanning has attributed a user's number of edits with their worth in order to discount their perfectly legitimate argument instead of presenting one of his own. cacophony 22:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
      • Are you really trying to argue that someone who only logs on to Wikipedia to 'vote' for some website to have an article can be considered part of the community for the purpose of determining its consensus? AfD is not a vote, nor is this. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 01:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
        • I never once mentioned the word "vote", you did. This is a consensus, and thus, if somebody presents a logical, legitimate argument, then you shouldn't discount it just because that person is new here. cacophony 02:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
          • That "logical, legitimate argument" has been put forward in the past and has never been sufficient. And Infinite is not new, he's been registered two months, he's just never contributed to the encyclopaedia. --Sam Blanning^(talk) 02:12, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
            • ^{Interesting debate there. I think you both got good points. ~ trialsanderrors 19:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)}
• Endorse closure, keep deleted per Blanning, although at least I have the presence of mind not to mention "putting his finger on it" with the link referenced. KillerChihuahua^?!? 23:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure and Keep Deleted per Blanning. --Kuzaar^-T-C- 23:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Do not endorse deletion, but Keep deleted per previous DRV. We've been through this before. Sure, the decision before was wrong - it should have been relisted as it does not qualify for a speedy delete. But really ... what's the point in rehashing this? I'm sure this isn't what you were looking for with your message to my talk page, but I call them like I see them. (By the way, vote stacking is one of the few things I dislike more than out of process deletions.) BigDT 23:35, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I was looking for your opinion, be it for or against :) The last AfD did nothing to inform any of the editors that it was happening, and that's what I'm trying to avoid. I want a fair, unbiased debate. Thanks for participating, cacophony 23:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
• Restore, per WP:DP: "Also repeated re-creation of an article by previously unassociated editors may at times be evidence of a need for an article." I believe this to be one of those times. Media mentions have been recorded, if I recall correctly. It doesn't do Wikipedia any harm to have the article here -- or at least, no more harm than these repeated DRVs do. Although I do have to say I don't appreciate the vote recruitment. Powers 00:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment "or at least, no more harm than these repeated DRVs do," This sounds like you are saying Wikipedia should let them have their way just because they are repeatedely DRVing the article. I think the repeated DRV's in this case are wrong, the process worked, and therefore this article should not be restored. Dionyseus 02:02, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Obviously the AfD process DIDN'T work. It was initiated without prior notice, held in secret, and closed just a few hours later. None of the editors ever knew what happened until the page disappeared. cacophony 02:09, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Also, this shouldn't be an 'us' vs. 'them'. I am NOT a part of the lame ass communty that they form to exclusively agitate people who enjoy, albeit repetitive, gameplay. There is a need form an informative article on a group and a name that conotates such frustration, and one that should be banned on sight. --68.40.0.189 02:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, endorse the last DRV discussion. No new evidence has been presented that convinces me that the previous decisions should be overturned. Rossami (talk) 02:44, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment - I had previously voted for this to be undeleted, mygot do have some kind of notability within Counter-Strike culture. Although when Wikipedia is moving towards deleting de dust, probably the most popular and notable thing to come out of Counter-Strike, mygot's claims pale in comparison. Bit of a shame. - Hahnchen 03:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure; this is a pointless request for a review. The previous review was quite extensive, attracted a wide range of opinions, and ended up being fairly conclusively against restoration. It was also very recent, and no new information has come up since then. --Aquillion 03:48, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• Keep deleted': per Aquillion & large multitude of previous decisions. Do we really have to revisit this every other month? --Hetar 03:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse closure, any article regarding the group won't be verfiable, there's no website showing they even exist still. Any decent article that could come out of it would be original research.--Andeh 09:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• Endorse Deletion and protection from recreation per above. Naconkantari 16:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• Restore and semi-protect, GNAA isn't a sacred cow and the double-standard is mind-boggling. bantown is much less notable overall, but still more notable your average hacker group. -- nae'blis _(talk) 18:38, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
• Strong Restore and supervise. The AfD pages havent shown a single good reason why this article was deleted, other than it seems to be a hated group, and that it will attract vandalism. I guarantee that if this is recreated, it will attract vandalism, but if that is the only criteron for keeping a notable group's page deleted, then WP is in trouble. See also gnaa nazi etc. Theres a vicious circle going on here along the lines of "Why not restore this?" "Because it was deleted before." "Why?" "Because it was deleted before." Ad nauseum. Myg0t is a notable group and deserves an article with some valid information about them. WP isnt about morality or attention, its about facts. TK 17:40, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• couldn't have put it better myself. It would not harm wikipedia to restore this article especially when many people come here to find out who they are anyway. myg0t DO still exist, they are just changing website hosters.--Nayl 04:46, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

• Restore Never heard of this group before but I searched for them and found many entries in the search engines throughout gaming sites. Likewise much discussion in the newsgroups. The nature of this group and what they do is immaterial. Are they noteworthy? Yes. Will other users benefit from such a article? Yes. If there are problems with article perhaps it needs to be rewritten, but I do not think such a article should be excluded. Nisanu 00:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Restore Notable group - notorious and infamous throughout much of the gaming community. Having a wikipedia article would serve to inform the public about the group, not, as some have suggested, give them undue exposure. I initially became aware of the controversy over this article when I was trying to explain the group to someone, and attempted to link them to the (non-existant) wikipedia article. Besides, if so many people are engaged in this DRV, doesn't that in itself demonstrate that the subject matter is notable? Although I am adverse to continual DRVs until the result I want is achieved, simply dismissing it on the basis that it was deleted before and therefore must be non-notable is a logical non-sequitor. The double-standards, hypocrasy and disingenuity of the admins and procedures involves does not look good either. Modest Genius ^talk 11:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
• Comment Userfied at User:TheGreatTK/myg0t - article seems to be well written, but needs cleanup and references.  T.K.  ^TALK  22:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)